Apple leaning towards dual LED light-bars for iPad 3's Retina Display

With Apple's next-generation iPad expected to adopt much higher resolution displays, the electronics maker and its component suppliers are reportedly challenged with designing new backlight solutions capable of maintaining the tablet's existing level of brightness with the higher density panels.

Citing sources within Apple's Taiwanese supply chain, DigiTimes claims that the single LED back-light bar designed for the iPad 2's 1024 x 768 resolution display is insufficient for maintaining and strengthening the brightness of the iPad 3's planned upgraded to a double pixel density "Retina Display" long rumored to be in the ballpark of 2048 by 1536 pixels.

As such, LED back-light unit (BLU) vendors have reportedly pitched two alternative solutions to the Cupertino-based company, including a new design that maintains a single-bar form factor but with two LED chips nestled inside.

Apple, however, is said to be leading towards a second option that proposes using dual-LED light bars inside the iPad 3 -- one on the left and one on the right -- now that the BLU makers have reportedly conquered initial design glitches that created heat dissipation and battery consumption problems earlier in their development.

Difficulty with the higher resolution displays and new LED backlight design is already reported to have "affected the launch schedule" of the iPad 3. Still, necessary components for the tablet's production have been arriving at Apple's overseas manufacturing facilities since the end of October, as Apple reportedly aspires to pre-construct roughly 2 million of the new tablets by the end of December in anticipation of a launch in March of 2012.

In addition to the higher resolution displays, the next iPad is also rumored to adopt a quad-core A6 processor based on either Samsung's or TSMC's 28-nanometer processing technology. Other rumored enhancements include a redesigned, smaller dock connector that will allow Apple to continue to shave down the tablet's thickness, and a thinner, lighter battery pack meeting CTIA IEE 1625 standard for better quality and safety reliability that will reportedly offer a longer service life than the battery found in the iPad 2.

If sources within Apple's supply chain are to be believed, the company as of last week had still yet to sign off on a finalized design for the new tablet that will ultimately be sent to mass production. Instead, it's reportedly been developing two next-generation designs -- code-named "J1" and "J2" -- that each sport slightly different sizes, specifications and technologies.

According to one report, the J2 project is a more ambitious upgraded to the iPad 2 than the J1 project and Apple is "likely to make the final decision" on which model to mass produce based on "its needs" and intelligence on what rival tablet makers will be capable of producing come early next year.

For more on Apple's reported plans for the next iPad, please see AppleInsider's iPad 3 information archive in addition to its special report on Why high resolution screens will matter on the iPad.

A quad core cpu, 2 led bands for the display and a high res display , would this make for horrible battery life?

Real customers want ease of use and long battery life. Nerds only care about technical specifications whether they translate into actual performance improvements or not. Nerds still won't buy iPods because they don't support Ogg Vorbis. Apple can never satisfy the nerds so I hope they concentrate on their bread and butter customers and work on battery technology first. Then they can up the processor power and resolution.

Real customers want ease of use and long battery life. Nerds only care about technical specifications whether they translate into actual performance improvements or not. Nerds still won't buy iPods because they don't support Ogg Vorbis. Apple can never satisfy the nerds so I hope they concentrate on their bread and butter customers and work on battery technology first. Then they can up the processor power and resolution.

There must not be a lot of `real nerds' left, by the looks of how many millions of iPads Apple keep selling.

There must not be a lot of `real nerds' left, by the looks of how many millions of iPads Apple keep selling.

Oh there are plenty of nerds left. its only the real anal ones that give two hoots about the exact number of bytes of ram available to Application B when Application A is processing data from Application C.

AKA Highly Overrated Audio Format. The only reason the nerds jump all over it is because it is open source.

OGG is actually no better than a high bit-rate MP3 - its actually a direct competitor to MP3 so you didn't have to pay for MP3 codec licenses (that has been rendered moot since the introduction of the LAME codec). In fact, OGG and MP3 are rendered obsolete by M4A audio via the Advanced Audio Codec (AAC). The AAC Codec used by iTunes, Playstation, Nintendo (pretty much everything) achieves far better sound quality than both OGG Vorbis and MP3. if anything these nerds should be jumping all over the iPod for its high quality codec pack. Its just Open Source nerds defending open source tech for no reason other than it is open source.

Now if only they could fix muted outgoing calls and battery glitches on the iPhone 4S before launch, that would be something.

My iPhone 4 does not have these issues with iOS5, thank goodness.

My iPhone4 seems to have had steroids pumped into its battery since the iOS5 update. Took it off the charger at 8:20 this morning - blue-toothed it to my car for music, sent a few texts, checked the time etc. and i'm still sporting 98% battery at 1:30 in the afternoon.

1080p would be even more usable. Especially if Apple has some video of that size up their sleeves.

That said, I agree with the base notion that a 300+dpi screen on the iPad isn't what we need at the moment if ever. But the brightest is a major complaint, especially outdoors. If this dual bar and a better light sensor would fix that then I hope this rumor is true.

You understand that this isn't "Desktop Area". Everything on the iPad is represented in points (not pixels). Going to 1280x960 would produce artifacts on points that are supposed to be pixel aligned. If they don't use a power of two increase in resolution, it will put a lot of effort on developers. Many of those developers won't have their products updated for the iPad 3 release and it would look bad to end users. This isn't a problem on the desktop (and probably on Android devices) because they just make everything smaller with the higher resolution instead of using the resolution to make everything clearer.

Apple seems to be driving iPad technology out of the range of rivals if a Retina-class display is something that consumers really take to. It will force rivals to keep cutting corners to stay within a certain price range if they try to copy what Apple is doing. It's a pretty shrewd strategy for Apple as long as they don't try to push too far in making the iPad difficult to manufacture. It might stretch out production time too much. I personally question the need for such a high-resolution display, but it may be just Apple's strategy to thwart copycats. I hope it works, because if consumers are just as well satisfied with the Kindle Fire's 7" medium resolution display for viewing content, then maybe Apple is just wasting its time.

AKA Highly Overrated Audio Format. The only reason the nerds jump all over it is because it is open source.

OGG is actually no better than a high bit-rate MP3 - its actually a direct competitor to MP3 so you didn't have to pay for MP3 codec licenses (that has been rendered moot since the introduction of the LAME codec). In fact, OGG and MP3 are rendered obsolete by M4A audio via the Advanced Audio Codec (AAC). The AAC Codec used by iTunes, Playstation, Nintendo (pretty much everything) achieves far better sound quality than both OGG Vorbis and MP3. if anything these nerds should be jumping all over the iPod for its high quality codec pack. Its just Open Source nerds defending open source tech for no reason other than it is open source.Disclaimer: Audio/Music producer for 7 years, semi-pro for 3

Good to have this made so clear.
Ever thought of adding “or imagination” to your signature? = Knockout.

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

iPad rumours are so frequent, especially coming from DigiTimes and they are so unreliable that I really think all of this stuff is purely a time waster. What's going to matter is what Apple really does release early next year when the iPad 3 is introduced. Ignore the rumours of that device coming with whatever specs happen to be the latest Digitimes and others conjure up and be especially dismissive of claims that the model coming out early next year is only an interim partial update and the real IPad 3 will come to market later in the year. Don't believe it.

Here's how I think it works. If one claims that there will be multiple updates of the iPad in the same calendar year, then one can generate rumours related to said updates pretty much 12 months of the year. If you're not so much in the business of providing reliable information on what is in store for the iPad and more about generating interest in your publication through a constant stream of iPad rumours, it pays to imply lots of iPad versions are coming. A 7-incher to go with the 9.7-incher. Not. A major update to follow months after a less major one. Not.

Apple has no competition and the best way to make more money is to not alter your product several times a year but rather to redesign on something closer to an annual schedule. This is what Apple has done, so far, with the iPad and there is no reason to imagine Apple feels the need to speed up its update process.

The tablet wars are over and Apple has clearly won. Hence, Apple can dictate what direction the iPad takes and at what pace the model will be updated.

I would give a lot more credence to rumours surfacing weeks before the new model is due to be unveiled because there do tend to be leaks close to intro. But it's November and the next iPad will likely be introduced roughly in March. Anything rumoured now is likely more wild guessing than concrete info.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if a few months from now we get only a moderately altered iPad, something like the incremental update we got this year, and that's it for calendar 2012. I believe it's enough because the competition is simply not even close to making a dent and has been pointed out, dramatically boosting screen resolution and processing power comes at a cost. In order for the iPad to remain wildly popular it needs to be reasonably priced and offer solid battery life. The current pricing for the iPad is the sweet spot, I believe, and the most impressive aspect to the original iPad. Competitors just can't build a tablet for much less money that anyone would enjoy owning. So if you're putting out the cash, why would you settle for somebody else's inferior product? It would be as if we could all own BMWs or Lexus' or Mercedes' and competitors were putting out lesser cars for the same price and expecting to sell more units. The only reason we're not all driving BMWs is that most of us would rather not (or can not) spend so much on a car. With tablets, that's just not the case. The decision is simple for most consumers. Want or need a tablet, buy an iPad.

So is the retina display likely at this time? My guess, and it is just a guess, is that the answer is no. Not essential. Too many complications. Just not worth it. Maybe in 2014 or 2015. Right now, though, why put such an expensive bit of tech in a wildly popular product that owners seem to love as is. It's only inviting headaches Apple doesn't need. What's the motivation, from Apple's perspective. There isn't any that I can determine.

I have held off buying an iPad but in a few months, even after what will no doubt be regarded as a wildly disappointing upgrade, I will buy one. What I think I'm going to get is a slightly lighter, somewhat faster version of the current model. Good enough for me and more to the point, good enough for the vast majority of those contemplating a tablet purchase in the coming year.

I'm missing something. How does the pixel density require more LEDs on a backlit display, assuming the screensize is the same. That makes no sense - the light from the back lighting is still being dispersed over the same area, and shone through the same amount of 'screen'.

personally, i think more people would be happier with similar resolution HD Super AMOLED display on the ipad3 for a number of reasons.
1) much better battery life, especially at high brightness levels
2) much better contrast, and therefore true blacks

iPad rumours are so frequent, especially coming from DigiTimes and they are so unreliable that I really think all of this stuff is purely a time waster. . . . The current pricing for the iPad is the sweet spot, I believe, and the most impressive aspect to the original iPad. Competitors just can't build a tablet for much less money that anyone would enjoy owning. So if you're putting out the cash, why would you settle for somebody else's inferior product? . . .

Excellent points. Remember the forecast price for the first iPad? A grand or better was the expected for an Apple tab. And when announced at half, the wannabes headed for the outhouse and haven’t come out with anything viable. The MBA carries on this charge and may be the way into the future of Apple pricing.

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

@Resolution skeptics: The Jivean (Jobs+Ive) mandate is to make the product with most sensory appeal possible, given the usual technical and economic constraints. Doesn't so much matter what we think we need or what the competition is doing. They will show us what we've been wanting without knowing it until we see it. It will be irresistible, and they know that.

You think the iPhone screen is amazing, wait till you see it writ large. The most amazing visual experience you can have in your lap. Er, in your hands. Oh, forget it.

It would be nice if they could keep the dock connector size the same. I don't want to have the confusion of "large dock connector" vs "small dock connector". or maybe they could just use mini USB instead, i've got 20 of those cables at home.

Real customers want ease of use and long battery life. Nerds only care about technical specifications whether they translate into actual performance improvements or not. Nerds still won't buy iPods because they don't support Ogg Vorbis. Apple can never satisfy the nerds so I hope they concentrate on their bread and butter customers and work on battery technology first. Then they can up the processor power and resolution.

I think you have to make a mental time adjustment whenever you read one of these stories (assuming it has any basis in fact).

The story reads as if this were breaking news-- that Apple is just now getting around to finding out that current LCD backlight tech isn't really cutting it and is now obliged to scramble to figure something out.

Of course we know that prototype iPad 3s have been in Apple's labs since at least the release of the iPad 2, in quite a few variants, and that Apple has been working on any technological hurdles to manufacturing a specific model with specific resolution, brightness, battery life, case design, etc. for some time now.

If differing solutions are on offer, or if some solutions have proven inadequate, all of this is an ongoing process that has been underway for at least the last year. With a probable release window for the iPad 3 around 3-4 months out I would expect Apple to have wrapped up the design and engineering phase and already be moving to the prepping for manufacturing phase. The iPad is simply too critical to Apple's fortunes to leave something as basic as pixel density vs. brightness to untested solutions this late in the game.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Upgrading to an intermediate screen resolution as you suggest would screw up all existing iPad applications and require developers to develop and maintain multiple versions of their apps for the different screens. This is the path that Android has taken, and the result - predictably - has been fragmentation and a dearth of quality tablet apps for Android.

By instead doubling the existing resolution, Apple gets to leapfrog competitors in display quality while making it a trivial effort to update all existing apps (flipping a switch to 2X existing resolution...)

While everyone's struggling to play checkers, Apple continues their game of chess.

personally, i think more people would be happier with similar resolution HD Super AMOLED display on the ipad3 for a number of reasons.
1) much better battery life, especially at high brightness levels
2) much better contrast, and therefore true blacks

I agree, Super AMOLED screens are fantastic. Samsung has already came up with the first Super AMOLED+ Galaxy tablet with 1280 x 800 pixels resolution (the highest pixel density we've seen on a tablet yet 196ppi). But unfortunately Super AMOLED screen is not going to happend to iPad anytime soon since currently these displays available only from a major competitor - Samsung. Major iPhone and iPad components already supplied by Samsung.

I don't think Apple is building a so-called "iPad 3." However, all evidence points to AppleInsider building a fictional iPad 3 using leaks and rumors.

I happened to have worked at one of San Diego's most successful mobile chip designer and I can tell you this: There may not be a device called "iPad3" yet but if Apple is a mature and sane device maker (and we know they are) rest assured there are at least 2 iterations of the iPad being modeled, debugged, tested, qualified, verified, environmental screened, etc. One of those will be the "iPad3" next year, and "iPad4" the following year, etc.

The "iPad3" will definitely happen next year. Apple is not one to milk a product to obsolescence. I concur the iPad2 is "almost perfect" but competitors will nibble at it from all directions (namely Samsung, Amazon, and BN). Those tablets with ICS 4.0 are not half-bad at all. I think ICS Android will start chewing off a lot more tablet share in a year. Apple will have to offer a lot more (like 2x the resolution? uSDHC slot like the Mac mini? faster dock connector? - hint: Thunderbolt?)

Talking about the presumed smaller dock connector. I recently upgraded to 64GB iPhone and that took way too long to load all my apps with that USB2-powered dock connector. Is Thunderbolt-powered dock on the way to the rescue. I don't see 128GB iPhones or iPads using USB2.0. Maybe USB3.0? That would be unusual considering Apple's/Intel's push for Thunderbolt on everything desktop.

I'm missing something. How does the pixel density require more LEDs on a backlit display, assuming the screensize is the same. That makes no sense - the light from the back lighting is still being dispersed over the same area, and shone through the same amount of 'screen'.

It might have something to do with the size of the cross-sectional channels for light dispersion.

Quote:

personally, i think more people would be happier with similar resolution HD Super AMOLED display on the ipad3 for a number of reasons.
1) much better battery life, especially at high brightness levels

Maybe not so happy, if they want decent battery life!
AMOLED actually consumes higher power with a white/light background, which is typically used for e-mail, web browsing, and reading. This is why you'll see AMOLED smart phones configured by default to run with mostly black/dark backdrops, so as to conserve battery life.

In contrast (no pun intended), LCDs consume low power in white areas and high power in black areas. An LCD pixel is fully "on" when it's black and fully "off" when it's white. With a white background, the overwhelming power draw is the backlight, which I believe consumes far less power than AMOLED does in achieving the same brightness.

AKA Highly Overrated Audio Format. The only reason the nerds jump all over it is because it is open source.

OGG is actually no better than a high bit-rate MP3 - its actually a direct competitor to MP3 so you didn't have to pay for MP3 codec licenses (that has been rendered moot since the introduction of the LAME codec). In fact, OGG and MP3 are rendered obsolete by M4A audio via the Advanced Audio Codec (AAC). The AAC Codec used by iTunes, Playstation, Nintendo (pretty much everything) achieves far better sound quality than both OGG Vorbis and MP3. if anything these nerds should be jumping all over the iPod for its high quality codec pack. Its just Open Source nerds defending open source tech for no reason other than it is open source.

It might have something to do with the size of the cross-sectional channels for light dispersion.

Maybe not so happy, if they want decent battery life!
AMOLED actually consumes higher power with a white/light background, which is typically used for e-mail, web browsing, and reading. This is why you'll see AMOLED smart phones configured by default to run with mostly black/dark backdrops, so as to conserve battery life.

We are not talking extremes. On average AMOLED consumes less power. Super AMOLED saves addional 20%. Quote: "AMOLED consumes less power, provides more vivid picture quality, and renders faster motion response as compared to other display technologies such as LCD. However, Super AMOLED is even better at this with 20% brighter screen, 20% lower power consumption and 80% less sunlight reflection."

We are not talking extremes. On average AMOLED consumes less power. Super AMOLED saves addional 20%. Quote: "AMOLED consumes less power, provides more vivid picture quality, and renders faster motion response as compared to other display technologies such as LCD. However, Super AMOLED is even better at this with 20% brighter screen, 20% lower power consumption and 80% less sunlight reflection."

I hate to be nitpicky, but let's not toss around statistics willy-nilly as though they're necessarily relevant. If you read carefully, that "20% brighter, 20% lower power consumption and 80% less sunlight reflection" is AMOLED compared to OLED, not to LCD.

"On average" refers to what average? Is this while displaying a dark home screen? If it's the average white background typically displayed while the user reads e-mail, browses the web, and reads, I'll bet LCD easily bests AMOLED in power conservation.

I believe the iPhone and iPad use IPS displays, not TFT, so comparing OLED/AMOLED to TFT is irrelevant to Apple's products.

Remember the Zune? It had an OLED display that looked great in a darkened room but sucked outdoors.
I've also seen some recent Samsung AMOLED diplays and, aside from being larger than the iPhone, their image quality sucks--way oversaturated color being the most noteworthy aspect. Comparing them to the iPhone 4/4s is like comparing a 2005 LCD television display to a Pioneer plasma monitor.

Would you next like to discuss the drawbacks to Samsung's PenTile AMOLED displays?

We are not talking extremes. On average AMOLED consumes less power. Super AMOLED saves addional 20%. Quote: "AMOLED consumes less power, provides more vivid picture quality, and renders faster motion response as compared to other display technologies such as LCD. However, Super AMOLED is even better at this with 20% brighter screen, 20% lower power consumption and 80% less sunlight reflection."

Your specs and claims may be totally correct but regardless of that I think everyone is forgetting one very important part of the equation. Is anyone capable of producing... say 80 to 100 million of this still rather new screen technology in 2012 at the required resolution and quality level?

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

It might have something to do with the size of the cross-sectional channels for light dispersion.

figured that would be the case, but i can't quite fathom how it would require upping the amount of LEDs, and therefore the amount of power draw by 100%. It just doesn't seem right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cpsro

Maybe not so happy, if they want decent battery life!
AMOLED actually consumes higher power with a white/light background, which is typically used for e-mail, web browsing, and reading. This is why you'll see AMOLED smart phones configured by default to run with mostly black/dark backdrops, so as to conserve battery life.

not sure this is entirely true, at least on how phones come configured. WP7, for example, comes configured with a light theme (white background). That said, the averaged out battery life still works out favourable on screen models available today compared to IPS, and there are plans for future AMOLED standards to more than half the power consumption and life span.

In contrast (no pun intended), LCDs consume low power in white areas and high power in black areas. An LCD pixel is fully "on" when it's black and fully "off" when it's white.

but conversely, with an LCD screen you're always powering the illumination of the entire screen, no matter what the contrast of the pixels. This is why LCD screens are so bad.. wasted power, and god-awful contrast ratios when compared to AMOLED.

I think, battery concerns aside, if apple shipped their next phone or tablet with a AMOLED display people would be genuinely happy about it.